Re: RDFa media type fragment interpretation (TAG-ACTION-509)

Thank you, Jeni. I note for the record that, consistent with the TAG's 
resolution last week [1], Jeni has also closed TAG ACTION-509 [2].



On 12/21/2011 4:22 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> Hello,
> As you know, the TAG previously requested that you add a Note (at [1]) flagging the issues around the use of idioms such as 'about="#me"' within HTML/XML documents using RDFa.
> The TAG has never been particularly happy about the wording of that note, but we have finally reached agreement about what we think it needs to say. Here is our suggested wording:
>      In some of the examples below we have used IRIs with
>      fragment identifiers that are local to the document containing the
>      RDFa fragment identifiers shown (e.g., 'about="#me"'). This idiom,
>      which is also used in RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and other RDF
>      serializations, gives a simple way to 'mint' new IRIs for entities
>      described by RDFa and therefore contributes considerably to the
>      expressive power of RDFa. The precise meaning of IRIs which include
>      fragment identifiers when they appear in RDF graphs is given in
>      Section 7 of [RDF-CONCEPTS]. To ensure that such fragment
>      identifiers can be interpreted correctly, media type registrations
>      for markup languages that incorporate RDFa should directly or
>      indirectly reference this specification (RDFa Core).
> The first two sentences are unchanged from the current note. The second two provide the pointer to RDF-CONCEPTS which describe how IRIs within RDF statements must be interpreted, and indicate how to preserve the "follow your nose" principle around the interpretation of fragment identifiers through referencing RDFa Core within media type registrations.
> I hope that this wording is acceptable to you, but are of course open to further discussion.
> Cheers,
> Jeni
> [1]

Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 15:31:20 UTC